cognitive processes underlying coping flexibility

Cognitive Processes Underlying Coping

Flexibility: Differentiation and Integration

Cecilia Cheng

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Mike W. L. Cheung

University of Hong Kong

ABSTRACT This study investigates how individuals formulate flexi-ble coping strategies across situations by proposing differentiation andintegration as two stress-appraisal processes. Results showed that partic-ipants who coped more flexibly adopted the dimensions of controllabilityand impact in differentiating among different stressful situations. Theyalso deployed an integrated strategy: the deployment of more monitoringin situations perceived as controllable but less of this strategy in situationsperceived as uncontrollable. Participants who coped less flexibly did notadopt any given dimensions and tended to use more monitoring regard-less of situational characteristics. These results suggest that individualswith different extents of coping flexibility differ in the cognitive processes.Individuals who cope more flexibly display a greater extent of differen-tiation and integration than do those who cope less flexibly. These find-ings are translated into strategies for stress management workshops.

The authors would like to thank Alison Lo, Chi-yue Chiu, Doris Leung, and Boris

Choy for valuable comments, and Chin-man Chui and Hiu-kam Wong for research

assistance.

Preparation of this article was supported by Research Grants Council’s Competitive

Earmarked Research Grant HKUST6049/98H and Direct Allocation Grant DAG99/

00.HSS02 to the first author.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cecilia Cheng, Di-

vision of Social Science, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear

Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

Journal of Personality 73:4, August 2005r Blackwell Publishing 2005DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00331.x

COGNITIVE PROCESSES UNDERLYING COPING FLEXIBILITYDIFFERENTIATION AND INTEGRATION

Stress is inevitable in life. When encountering a stressful event, peo-ple endeavor to cope with it by attempting to solve the problem or by

avoiding a direct confrontation with it by changing their thoughtsand emotions (see Roth & Cohen, 1986). However, they rarely cope

with only a single type of stressful event; instead, they face a varietyof stressful events with distinct characteristics. Some stressful eventshave a large impact on individuals (e.g., being fired), whereas some

stressful events are trivial (e.g., hurting a finger). Some of them arecontrollable (e.g., failing an examination), but other events are un-

controllable (e.g., being turned down by a client).The same coping strategy can have distinct extents of usefulness in

different stressful situations. For instance, monitoring or attendingto threat-related information, a kind of approach coping, has been

found to be beneficial for enhancing people’s awareness of the dan-ger aspect of a situation, thus preparing them to handle it (e.g., Mu-

ris, van Zuuren, & De Vries, 1994; van Zuuren & Dooper, 1999).However, excessive monitoring can, by heightening anxiety levels, beharmful (e.g., Cheng, Hui, & Lam, 2000; Roussi, 2002). Blunting or

turning away from threat-related information, a kind of avoidantcoping, is useful in pacifying anxiety in times of stress (e.g., Muris,

De Jong, Merckelbach, & van Zuuren, 1994; M. D. Schwartz, Ler-man, Miller, & Daly, 1995). Yet, excessive blunting desensitizes in-

dividuals from the danger of a stressful situation, thus makingindividuals more vulnerable to the possible harm of stress (e.g.,

Carver, Pozo, Harris, & Noriega, 1993; Derogatis, Abeloff, & Me-lisaratos, 1979). This body of studies indicates that the predominantuse of any type of coping strategy can be debilitating. People need to

be flexible in the deployment of strategies for effective coping withdiverse types of stressful situations.

Studies on coping flexibility (e.g., Cheng, 2003; Schmidt, Nachti-gall, Wuethrich-Martone, & Strauss, 2002; C. E. Schwartz & Da-

ltroy, 1999; Watanabe, Iwanaga, & Ozeki, 2002) have shown thatindividuals differ in the extent of their coping flexibility across stress-

ful situations. Some individuals use different types of coping strat-egies in distinct stressful situations, and the characteristics of coping

strategies fit the specific situational demands. By contrast, other in-dividuals use the same type of coping strategies consistently across

860 Cheng & Cheung

situations. Moreover, coping flexibility with a good strategy-situa-

tion fit is related to adaptive coping outcomes, such as psychologicalwell-being (e.g., Cheng, 2003; Watanabe et al., 2002), physical well-

being (e.g., Cheng et al., 2000; C. E. Schwartz & Daltroy, 1999),social adaptation (e.g., Schmidt et al., 2002; Slangen-de Kort, Mid-

den, Aarts, & Van Wagenberg, 2001), and reduced strain symptoms(Kaluza, 2000, 2001). Such flexibility in coping was unrelated to self-

monitoring, social desirability, and education levels (Cheng, 2001,2003). Apart from individual differences in coping flexibility and

coping outcomes, it is also important to explore the process under-lying coping flexibility, that is, how individuals formulate flexible orinflexible coping strategies across stressful situations. This informa-

tion is valuable for not only advancing knowledge in the coping lit-erature but also the design of stress management workshops in

deriving effective coping methods.

Two Appraisal Processes of Coping Flexibility: Differentiation and

Integration

The construct of coping flexibility has its roots in the transactional

theory of coping (see Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987), themost influential coping theory to date. The transactional theory ofcoping (Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987) adopted phen-

omenological theories of personality (Kelly, 1955; Rogers, 1959) asthe theoretical underpinning. Phenomenological theories propose

that the same event can be perceived by different individuals in dis-tinct ways, and individuals’ subjective perception (phenomenal field)

of the environment plays a significant role in influencing their be-haviors. In the transactional theory, coping is seen as a process un-

derlying how individuals interact with the environment. Specifically,coping is proposed as an ongoing, evolving process that occurs

within the interface of changing persons and situational demands.Cognitive appraisal is proposed to play an important role in thecoping process. Because the environment is ever changing, individ-

uals perceive different stressful situations in distinct manners andvary their deployment of coping strategies across stressful situations.

Flexible stress appraisal facilitates flexible coping responses.Although the transactional theory contributed to the coping lit-

erature by highlighting cross-situational variability in coping, it didnot address the issue of individual differences in cross-situational

Cognitive Processes Underlying Coping Flexibility 861

variability. Previous studies (e.g., Riskind & Williams, 1999; Wil-

helm, Roy, Mitchell, Brownhill, & Parker, 2002) have revealed indi-vidual differences in the extent of flexibility in strategy deployment

across situations. Some individuals tend to vary their strategies indifferent situations, whereas others tend to use the same type of

strategies regardless of situational characteristics. The present studyexplored some cognitive processes related to individual differences in

coping flexibility across situations. Flexible stress appraisal involvescomplex thinking by which apparently contradictory information(e.g., controllable vs. uncontrollable situations, advantages and lim-

itations of the same coping strategy) is processed. Because complexthinking comprises both differentiation and integration (e.g., A. Mill-

er & Wilson, 1979; Wyer, 1964), these two cognitive processes areproposed as relevant theoretical underpinnings of coping flexibility.

Differentiation is conceptualized as an ability to recognize mul-tiple dimensions embedded in a perceived domain and to the taking

of different perspectives when considering the domain. (see, e.g.,Stephan, 1977; Tramer & Schludermann, 1974). This construct orig-

inated from Kelly’s (1955) personal construct theory, which pro-posed that individuals possess a system of dimensions for perceivingevents. The relative complexity of a person’s system of dimensions

defines his or her capacity to perceive behaviors in a multifacetedway. Individuals high in differentiation can distinguish among per-

sons or events by recognizing multiple perspectives of a perceptualphenomenon. They tend to discern more than one dimension when

evaluating an event, or they tend to view the event from more thanone perspective. Although differentiation refers to the perception of

multiple dimensions within a perceived domain, it is a necessary butinsufficient prerequisite for integration. Complex thinking shouldinvolve not only the making of many differentiations but also the

development of an integrative synthesis of these differentiations.Differentiation and integration should thus be conceptualized as

separate cognitive dimensions.Integration is conceptualized as an ability to perceive trade-offs

among alternatives in combination or interaction (see, e.g., Stewin,1976; Suedfeld & Coren, 1992). Integration involves the development

of conceptual connections among differentiated dimensions or per-spectives. The differentiated dimensions are combined through the

perception of such dimensions in interaction, combination, or asparts of a larger superordinate entity. This construct is consistent

862 Cheng & Cheung

with the postulations of both the conceptual complexity theory

(Streufert & Streufert, 1978) and cognitive-affective processing sys-tem theory (Mendoza Denton, Shoda, Ayduk, & Mischel, 1999; Mi-

schel & Shoda, 1998), both of which propose that informationprocessing is operated by a highly dynamic system that constantly

synthesizes and reconciles various pieces of information. Individualshigh in integration are able to integrate various perspectives of a

perceptual phenomenon by forming conceptual connections amongthe perspectives. Such connections are inferred from references to

trade-offs between alternatives, a synthesis between them, or a ref-erence to a higher-order concept that subsumes them (Suedfeld,Tetlock, & Streufert, 1992).

These two processes may be relevant to the flexible stress appraisaland flexible coping responses of individuals high in coping flexibility.

These individuals may make differentiations in their strategy formu-lation by recognizing (a) multiple perspectives of stressful events (e.g.,

outcome controllability, perceived impact) and (b) trade-offs regard-ing the strengths and limitations of different coping strategies. They

may be able to form integrated cognitions that incorporate discrepantinformation (e.g., controlling the situation if its outcome can be al-tered but changing oneself if the situation cannot be altered). The use

of such an integrated strategy that matches the specific demands ofdifferent stressful events is related to adaptive outcomes, such as re-

duced anxiety and depression. Figure 1 outlines the conceptual frame-work depicting the relationships among differentiation, integration,

flexible stress appraisal, flexible coping pattern, and coping outcomes.

Aims and Hypotheses of the Study

The present study examines two appraisal processes of coping flex-ibility: differentiation and integration. Differentiation is operation-

alized by the number of dimensions used to distinguish amongdifferent events (see, e.g., Harvey, Hunt, & Schroder, 1961;Schroder, 1971). To assess differentiation, we designed a task in

which participants compared some common stressful situationsbased on a number of dimensions they might have had in mind.

Studies on stress appraisal adopted self-report questionnaires inwhich participants rated their experienced stressful events along

certain perceptual dimensions. A review of the coping literaturerevealed that controllability (e.g., Cheng et al., 2000; Roussi, Miller,


& Shoda, 2000), impact (e.g., Amirkhan, 1998; Maunsell, Brisson,Mondor, Verreault, & Deschenes, 2001), predictability (e.g., Anisman

& Merali, 1999; Deck & Jamieson, 1998), and significance (e.g.,Howe, 1997; Yue, 2001) are the dimensions most commonly adoptedby researchers. It is noteworthy that in these studies, decisions re-

garding which dimensions to use in stress appraisal were made byresearchers rather than by participants. Whether these dimensions

represent the ‘‘implicit’’ dimensions actually represented in partici-pants’ minds remains largely unknown. The present study extended

this body of research by examining which of these dimensions wereactually adopted by participants in appraising stressful events. Un-

derstanding these implicit dimensions may provide useful informationon how individuals structure their thinking when handling stress.

Stressful Events

Flexible Stress Appraisals

Flexible Coping Responses

Differentiation Integration

Coping Outcomes

Figure 1Conceptual framework depicting the relationships among stressful

events, differentiation, integration, flexible stress appraisals, and flex-ible coping responses.

864 Cheng & Cheung

Integration is operationalized by the development of conceptual

associations among differentiated perspectives (see Baker-Brown etal., 1992; Suedfeld & Coren, 1992). To assess integration, we exam-

ined how participants deployed different strategies in distinct per-ceived categories of stressful situations. The relationships between

the nature of strategies and situational characteristics may be bestrepresented by a strategy-situation profile (see Figure 2). Although

individuals high in coping flexibility are characterized by a highly

0

1

2

3

4

Dentist Hostage Layoff Plane Dinner Ballgame EarlyCancer

TerminalCancer

Dentist Hostage Layoff Plane Dinner Ballgame EarlyCancer

TerminalCancer

Mon

itorin

g S

core

s

Flexible Group Active-inflexible Group

Flexible Group Active-inflexible Group

0

1

2

3

4

Blu

ntin

g S

core

s

(b)

(a)

Figure 2Strategy-situation profiles for the flexible group and the active-in-

flexible group.


variable strategy-situation profile, they do not vary their deployment

of coping strategies randomly. Their strategy-situation profile shouldreflect certain kinds of stable patterns (e.g., using strategy A in sit-

uations perceived as having a particular type of characteristics, usingstrategy B in situations perceived as having other characteristics),

which reveal integrated connections between the nature of copingstrategies and perceived characteristics of situations.

Two hypotheses were tested in this study. Compared to individualslower in coping flexibility, individuals higher in coping flexibility arehypothesized to display (a) a greater extent of differentiation, as indi-

cated by the use of a greater number of dimensions when making suchdifferentiations, and (b) a greater extent of integration, as indicated by

a variable strategy-situation profile with stable patterns of coping re-sponses across different perceived categories of stressful situations.

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

One hundred twenty-seven Hong Kong undergraduates (48 men and 79women) participated in this study as a partial fulfillment of a course re-quirement. Their average age was 21.10 years (SD5 .91). Informed con-sent was obtained from them before the study began.

Measures

Strategy-situation profile. Participants’ coping patterns across situationswere assessed by the Extended Miller Behavioral Style Scale (EMBSS;Cheng, Chiu, Hong, & Cheung, 2001). The EMBSS was adopted becausethis is the only coping measure that consists of a number of hypotheticalstressful situations with distinct nature (see Appendix A). The first foursituations (i.e., Dentist, Hostage, Layoff, Plane) were adopted from theMiller Behavioral Style Scale (MBSS; S. M. Miller & Mangan, 1983). Theother four (i.e., Business Dinner, Ballgame, Early Cancer, and TerminalCancer) were constructed by Cheng and associates to broaden the diver-sity of the hypothetical situations. A stress measure with hypotheticalstressful events, rather than those with self-report stressful events, wasadopted to provide a set of situations common to all participants so thatthe perceived dimensions could be derived.

Participants were asked to vividly imagine themselves encountering thesituation. Their task was to decide whether they would employ a given

866 Cheng & Cheung

strategy in handling each of the situations. Eight possible responses, withfour assessing monitoring and four assessing blunting, were included ineach hypothetical situation. Monitoring, a kind of approach coping, re-fers to the propensity of focusing one’s attention on threat-related infor-mation. Blunting, a kind of avoidant coping, refers to the tendency todivert one’s attention by turning away from threat-related information.The EMBSS has adequate internal consistency (a5 .84 for the monitor-ing subscale and a5 .75 for the blunting subscale). This measure wasfound to be related to university students’ real-life coping strategies andtheir mood levels (Cheng et al., 2001).

Following Miller’s (1992) scoring method, the monitoring responsesendorsed in each of the eight hypothetical situations were aggregated toform a monitoring score, which ranges from 0 to 32. The blunting re-sponses endorsed in each hypothetical situation were aggregated to form ablunting score, which also ranges from 0 to 32. Consistent with the body ofresearch conducted by Miller (see S. M. Miller, 1992), this study revealedthat these two subscales were relatively independent (r5 � .12, p5 .17).The monitoring and the blunting scores were thus reported separately. Foreach of these subscales, the scores of the eight situations were plotted toform a strategy-situation profile for subsequent analysis of integration.

Differentiation of stressful situations. Participants’ differentiation ofstressful situations was measured by a questionnaire designed by the au-thors. Differentiation was indicated by the adoption of perceptual di-mensions in making the differentiations. Participants were asked to rateeach stressful situation along four dimensions: controllability (rangingfrom 15 is extremely uncontrollable to 65 is extremely controllable), im-pact (ranging from 15 has no impact to 65 has an extremely large im-pact), predictability (ranging from 15 is extremely unpredictable to 65 isextremely predictable), and significance (ranging from 15 is extremelyinsignificant to 65 is extremely significant).

Coping outcomes. Three measures of coping outcomes were adopted inthis study for measuring trait anger, trait anxiety, and depression, re-spectively. The State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2;Spielberger, 1988) was used to assess general feelings of anger. The T-Anger scale, which comprises 10 statements, was adopted. Respondentsgive 4-point ratings to each of the statements. The trait anger scores rangefrom 10 to 40, with a higher score indicating a higher trait level of anger.The Chinese version of the STAXI was both reliable and valid (Yang, 1997).

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI Form Y-2; Spielberger,1983) was used to measure general feelings of tension, apprehension,and nervousness. The T-Anxiety scale, which comprises 20 statements,


was adopted. Respondents give 4-point ratings to each statement. Theanxiety scores range from 20 to 80, with a higher score indicating a highertrait anxiety level. The Chinese version of the STAI displayed good in-ternal consistency and criterion-related validity (Shek, 1988; Ye, 1990).

The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock,& Erbaugh, 1961) was adopted in this study for measuring general de-pressive feelings. The BDI consists of 21 items. The depression scoreranges from 0 to 63, with a higher score indicating a higher level of de-pression. The Chinese version of the BDI had good reliability (Shek,1990) and criterion-related validity (Shek, 1991).

Social desirability. A measure of social desirability was included to ex-amine the possible confounding effect of social desirability on copingflexibility. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale (MCSD;Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) was used to assess social desirability. Thismeasure consists of 33 items to which respondents indicate ‘‘yes’’ (1) or‘‘no’’ (0). The MCSD scores range from 0 to 33. A higher score indicates adesire to achieve greater social desirability. The Chinese version of theMCSD displays good reliability and criterion-related validity (Yang,1997).

Procedures

The set of questionnaires was administered to participants in groups of 6to 8. A trained research assistant read the instructions to participants andresponded to any inquiries raised by them. Participants were allowed totake as much time as needed to complete the questionnaire. On comple-tion of the task, they were thanked for their participation. Results werepresented and discussed in a subsequent tutorial session.

RESULTS

Strategy-Situation Profile and Coping Flexibility

Strategy-situation profiles provide a picture of how participants de-

ployed monitoring and blunting strategies in different situations. Toidentify groups of participants with similar strategy-situation pro-

files, hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to classify partici-pants into discrete groups based on participants’ endorsed strategies

for the eight EMBSS situations. Hierarchical cluster analysis wasused because it attempts to organize the data into a hierarchy, that is,

868 Cheng & Cheung

a tree diagram, or dendrogram. Organizing data into a hierarchy is

deemed most suitable for exploring the data structure. This tech-nique has been commonly used to identify underlying psychological

dimensions (e.g., Dunn & Nielsen, 1993; Nosofsky, 1991).A 16� 127 data matrix was constructed with the 127 participants

as cases and their raw scores of monitoring scores (the first eightcolumns) and blunting scores (the following eight columns) across

the rows. Ward’s (1963) minimum variance method was adopted asthe grouping method because it performs better than other clustering

methods in most conditions (see, e.g., Blashfield, 1984; Milligan &Cooper, 1987). This method has also been used in previous studies inidentifying participants with different patterns of coping flexibility

(e.g., Cheng, 2001; Kaluza, 2000). In this grouping method, caseswith the least increase in error (within-group) sum of squares of each

cluster were merged at each step in the analysis. A series of hierar-chical clusters were generated to partition the data into optimally

homogeneous groups. Two clusters of participants were identified,with 94 participants (35 men, 59 women) in Cluster 1 and 33 par-

ticipants (13 men, 20 women) in Cluster 2. In comparison with otherpossible solutions, the two-cluster solution was the most meaningful

Table 1Descriptive Statistics of Major Variables by Groups

Variable

Flexible

Group/ Active-Inflexible Group/

Cluster 1 Cluster 2

(n5 94) (n5 33)

M SD M SD p

Monitoring 22.46 3.65 28.24 2.36 o .0001

Variability in monitoring 1.16 .29 .64 .33 o .0001

Blunting 15.80 4.26 10.79 4.48 o .0001

Variability in blunting 1.04 .28 .96 .25 .16

Trait anger 18.34 6.02 24.03 6.29 o .0001

Trait anxiety 30.42 4.29 32.55 3.87 .01

Depression 11.25 4.92 11.88 4.74 .52

Social Desirability 18.68 7.62 19.09 10.14 .81


and stable (as reflected by the replicable results using the split-half

method and Cheng’s [2001] previous study). Table 1 presents meansand standard deviations of the major variables for these groups.

Group Differences in Coping, Psychological Well-Being, and Social

Desirability

Group differences in coping flexibility. Differences in coping flexi-bility between the clusters were examined. Coping flexibility wasoperationalized by (a) variability in coping pattern, and (b) the de-

ployment of situation-appropriate strategies that fit the specific de-mands of stressful situations (see Cheng, 2001). We first examined

differences in the extent of variability in strategy-situation profilesbetween the clusters. Variability was calculated by the standard de-

viation across the EMBSS scores of the eight stressful situations (see,e.g., Greenleaf, 1992). This method has been adopted by previous

studies on coping flexibility (see, e.g., Cheng, 2001; Murphy, 2001).Results showed that the monitoring strategy-situation profile ofCluster 1 was more variable than that of Cluster 2, F(1, 126)

5 71.13, po.0001. However, no statistically significant differencesin variability in the use of blunting were found between the two

groups, F(1, 126)5 1.96, p5 .16.Then we examined the situation-appropriateness of strategies by

comparing the strategy-situation profiles of both clusters with anexpert prototype profile, which is derived from previous theories and

findings. Specifically, in the study by Chiu and associates (1995), apanel of independent experts evaluated the MBSS situations to de-

termine the usefulness of monitoring and blunting in each situation.Only in the Hostage situation was monitoring deemed adaptive byexperts (see also Strentz & Auerbach, 1988). In light of Carver and

Scheier’s (1983) control system theory, monitoring the audience’sreactions to the self is useful in novel social situations (e.g., attending

a business dinner for the first time) where new information or feed-back from the audience is required for regulating one’s behaviors.

However, performance on a skilled task (e.g., ballgame) will be ad-versely affected when the performer tries to monitor the audience’s

reactions. Finally, in the face of lethal health threats (e.g., terminalcancer), studies (e.g., S. M. Miller, Rodoletz, Schroeder, Mangan, &Sedlacek, 1996) showed that active monitoring of danger signals can

be debilitating.

870 Cheng & Cheung

In light of these theories and findings, the expert prototype profile

of monitoring comprises eight scores: A score of 1 is assigned tosituations in which the deployment of monitoring strategy is more

effective (i.e., Hostage, Business Dinner, and Early Cancer). A scoreof 0 is assigned to situations in which the deployment of monitoring

strategy is less effective (i.e., Dentist, Layoff, Plane, Ballgame, andTerminal Cancer). The expert prototype profile of blunting also

comprises eight scores: A score of 1 is given to situations in which thedeployment of blunting strategy is more effective (i.e., Hostage,

Business Dinner, and Early Cancer). A score of 0 is given to theother five situations in which the deployment of blunting strategy isless effective. The prototype method (see, e.g., Wagner, 1987) was

used to reveal the degree of similarity between the strategy-situationprofiles and their respective expert prototype profiles. Adopting this

method, we examined the clusters’ deviation scores, which were de-rived from aggregating the deviations (absolute values were taken) of

their respective set of scores from the set of scores of the expertprototype profile. The deviation score reflects the extent of devia-

tions from the expert prototype profile. The smaller the value, themore similar a strategy-situation profile is to the expert prototypeprofile.

For both monitoring and blunting, the ANOVA results revealed astatistically significant difference in the deviation scores between the

two clusters, Fs(1, 126)5 65.93 and 29.78, pso.0001. The deviationscores of Cluster 1 (Ms5 12.80 and 15.21) were smaller than those of

Cluster 2 (Ms5 17.58 and 18.73), indicating that both the monitor-ing and the blunting strategy-situation profiles of Cluster 1 were

more similar to those of the expert prototype profile. Cluster 1 wasreferred to as the ‘‘flexible group.’’ By contrast, participants in Clus-

ter 2 used more monitoring strategies and less blunting strategiesthan those in Cluster 1, Fs(1, 126)5 71.22 and 32.66, pso.0001.Cluster 2 was referred to as the ‘‘active-inflexible group.’’ These re-

sults were consistent with those from the study by Cheng and col-leagues (2001).

Group differences in psychological well-being and social desirability.

Differences in trait anger, trait anxiety, depression, and social de-sirability between the clusters were then examined. Results from the

multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed a statisticallysignificant effect of group, F(4, 122)5 6.64, po.0001. Post hoc


univariate tests showed that participants of the flexible group re-

ported lower levels of trait anger and trait anxiety, Fs(1, 126)5 21.22and 6.29, pso.01. However, the groups did not differ in depression

and social desirability, Fs(1, 126)5 .41 and .06, ps4.52.

Differentiation and Coping Flexibility

Number of dimensions adopted in differentiation. Multidimensional

scaling (MDS) was employed to uncover the spatially representabledimensionality or structure embedded in the differentiation ratings.

Because there are only eight situations, solutions with more than twodimensions are not reliable (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black,

1992). Only the one-dimensional and the two-dimensional solutionswere considered. The optimal dimensionality of an MDS configura-

tion is identified by two indices, stress value and R2 (see Everitt,Landau, & Leese, 2001). The stress value indicates the extent of datamismatch, and R2 indicates the proportion of variance accounted for

by the configuration. A configuration with a good fit of the datashould have a small stress value (.10 is deemed adequate, see

Kruskal, 1964) and a large R2.For the flexible group, the one-dimensional configuration of the

differentiation ratings yielded a stress value of .27 and R2 of .80. Thetwo-dimensional configuration yielded a stress value of .11 and R2 of

.91. Hence, the two-dimensional configuration is adequate in ex-plaining the differentiation ratings, but the one-dimensional config-

uration is not. For the active-inflexible group, the one-dimensionalconfiguration yielded a stress value of .38 and R2 of .61. The two-dimensional configuration yielded a stress value of .18 and R2 of .79.

The stress values of both configurations showed a poor fit, indicatingthat the differentiation ratings of the active-inflexible group could

not be accounted for by both MDS configurations.

Perceptual map of the flexible group. The results showed that thetwo-dimensional configuration had a good fit of the differentiation

ratings of the flexible group. Ratings of the four perceptual dimen-sions (i.e., controllability, impact, predictability, and significance)

were included to examine which of these dimensions could accountfor the two-dimensional configuration. We performed the statisticaltechnique of Property Fitting (PROFIT; Chang & Carroll, 1989) to

fit the dimension ratings into the two-dimensional configuration.

872 Cheng & Cheung

PROFIT involves performing a multiple regression analysis, with the

coordinates of the two-dimensional configuration (i.e., dimensions 1and 2) as independent variables and the dimension ratings as de-

pendent variables.For the flexible group, the two-dimensional configuration had

statistically significant multiple correlations (R) with the dimensionsof controllability and impact only, Rs5 .88 and .84, pso.05. These

results suggest that examining the perceptual dimensions of control-lability and impact can allow us to decipher the underlying structure

of the flexible group’s perceptual map.Figure 3 presents a perceptual map depicting the vectors of the

two dimensions. This figure shows that the dimensions are almost

perpendicular to each other. The ‘‘horizontal’’ dimension is control-lability, whereas the ‘‘vertical’’ dimension is impact. These results

indicate that for participants in the flexible group, their perception ofthe eight EMBSS stressful situations was organized in a two-dimen-

sional manner: (a) Hostage and Early Cancer are perceived as morecontrollable and having greater impact, (b) Business Dinner is per-

ceived as more controllable and having less impact, (c) TerminalCancer is perceived as less controllable and having greater impact,

Figure 3Perceptual map of the flexible group (A 5 Dentist, B 5 Hostage,

C 5 Layoff, D 5 Plane, E 5 Business Dinner, F 5 Ballgame, G 5 EarlyCancer, H 5 Terminal Cancer).


and (d) Dentist, Layoff, Plane, and Ballgame are perceived as less

controllable and having less impact. Their perception matched wellwith the experts’ ratings as well as previous theories and findings

described above.

Conclusion. In making differentiations among the stressful situa-tions, the flexible group adopted the perceptual dimensions of con-

trollability and impact. The active-inflexible group did not adopt anygiven dimensions in perceiving the situations. Taken together, these

results showed that the flexible group displayed a greater extent ofdifferentiation in perceiving stressful events than did the active-in-

flexible group.

Integration and Coping Flexibility

Integration was operationalized by the development of conceptual

associations between the perceived dimensions of stressful situationsand coping responses. Profile analysis was conducted to examine

such conceptual associations. Following the procedures outlined byTabachnick and Fidell (1996), the overall group difference in the

strategy-situation profile was examined first.For the monitoring strategy-situation profile, results showed a

statistically significant group difference, F(1, 126)5 71.22, po.0001

(partial Eta squared5 .36), indicating that the monitoring strategy-situation profile of the flexible group differs from that of the active-

inflexible group. Then a parallelism test, which tests the Group�Situation interaction, was conducted to examine whether the shape

of the strategy-situation profile was different between the groups.Results from the parallelism test revealed a statistically significant

interaction effect, F(7, 875)5 10.96, po.0001 (partial Eta squared5

.08), indicating that the profile shape was different for the groups.Two sets of interaction contrasts analysis were conducted to fur-

ther explore the interaction effect. First, the within-participant effectof situation was examined for each group. For the flexible group, the

ANOVA results revealed that the situation effect was statisticallysignificant, F(7, 651)5 63.36, po.0001 (partial Eta squared5 .41).

The situation effect was also statistically significant for the active-inflexible group, F(7, 224)5 5.88, po.0001 (partial Eta squared5

.16). These results showed that although participants of both groupsdid vary their use of monitoring across the eight stressful situations,

874 Cheng & Cheung

the cross-situation variability in monitoring for the flexible group

was greater than that for the active-inflexible group. Second, thesource of group differences in the use of monitoring for each stressful

situation was examined. Post hoc Bonferroni tests showed that theflexible group deployed fewer monitoring strategies than did the ac-

tive-inflexible group in the situations of Dentist, Layoff, Plane, Ball-game, and Terminal Cancer (pso.01). It is noteworthy that these

situations were perceived as uncontrollable by the flexible group (seeFigure 3). However, in the situations of Hostage, Business Dinner,

and Early Cancer, the flexible and the active-inflexible groups de-ployed the same number of monitoring strategies (ps4.17). Thesesituations were perceived as controllable by the flexible group (see

Figure 3).For the blunting strategy-situation profile, results revealed a sta-

tistically significant group difference, F(1, 126)5 32.66, po.0001(partial Eta squared5 .21), indicating that the blunting strategy-sit-

uation profile of the flexible group differed from that of the active-inflexible group. Then a parallelism test, which tests the Group�Situation interaction, was conducted to examine whether the shapeof the blunting strategy-situation profile was different for the twogroups. Results from the parallelism test revealed a statistically sig-

nificant interaction effect, F(7, 875)5 13.07, po.0001 (partial Etasquared5 .07).

The within-participant effect of situation was first examined foreach group. For the flexible group, results showed that the situation

effect was statistically significant, F(7, 651)5 13.20, po.0001 (par-tial Eta squared5 .12). The situation effect was also statistically sig-

nificant for the active-inflexible group, F(7, 224)5 5.18, po.0001(partial Eta squared5 .14). These results showed that the shape of

the blunting profile was similar for the two groups.

Conclusion. The present results showed that, compared to the ac-

tive-inflexible group, the flexible group had more variable strategy-situation profiles. The monitoring strategy-situation profile of the

flexible group bore a greater resemblance to the expert prototypeprofile. Participants of the flexible group deployed more monitoring

strategies to handle situations perceived as controllable, but lessmonitoring strategies to handle situations perceived as uncontrolla-

ble. Their strategy-situation profile did reveal some conceptual inte-gration in that the distinct strategies of monitoring were blended into


an integrated strategy. The integrated strategy incorporates the

strength of the monitoring strategy to meet the specific demandsof situations with distinct outcome controllability. However, the rel-

atively flat strategy-situation profile of the active-inflexible grouprevealed that participants in this group deployed monitoring strat-

egies regardless of situational characteristics. Taken together, themonitoring strategy-situation profile of the flexible group reflected

more integration than that of the active-inflexible group.

DISCUSSION

As hypothesized, results from this study reveal that individuals high-er in coping flexibility display a greater extent of differentiation and

integration than do those lower in coping flexibility. Specifically, in-dividuals who cope more flexibly tend to differentiate among stress-

ful events using the perceptual dimensions of controllability andimpact, and deploy an integrated strategy to handle stressful events

with different extents of controllability. This integrated strategy re-fers to greater use of monitoring strategies in controllable situations

and less use of monitoring in uncontrollable situations. By contrast,individuals who cope less flexibly perceive stressful situations aslargely similar and consistently use more monitoring regardless of

the characteristics of stressful situations.It is noteworthy that the blunting strategy-situation profile was

relatively less distinct between the groups. One possibility is thatblunting is generally perceived by university students as socially un-

desirable (see, e.g., Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski, 1996; Rambo-Chroniak, 1999). As shown in this study, most of the participants

tended to use less blunting than monitoring strategies. This finding isconsistent with other studies (e.g., Li, 1997; Westman & Shirom,1995), which reveal that university students have a propensity for

perceiving situations as more controllable and use more monitoringor approach coping to handle stressful events than do older adults.

Variability in deploying blunting strategies may be more influencedby personal preferences than by flexible perception of stressful sit-

uations. Another possibility is that perceived control is closely as-sociated with the use of monitoring, as proposed by the theory of

cognitive adaptation to threatening events (Taylor, 1983) and thetheory of reactance (Brehm, 1972). However, blunting may be close-

876 Cheng & Cheung

ly related to factors other than perceived control. Studies (e.g., Co-

hen, 2002; Ravindran, Matheson, Griffiths, Merali, & Anisman,2002) reveal that blunting is related to pessimism and depression.

Individuals with depression tend to use more blunting strategies thanthose without depression. As shown in this study, participants in the

flexible group and those in the active-inflexible group did not differin depression levels. This lack of difference in depression levels be-

tween the groups may account for the absence of differences in theirblunting strategy-situation profiles.

Theoretical and Research Implications

The present results may have broader theoretical implications for thecoping literature. The transactional theory of coping (Lazarus, 1993;

Lazarus & Folkman, 1987) proposes that the coping process beginswith individuals’ cognitive appraisal of whether an encountered

stressful event will have an impact on them (i.e., primary apprais-al). Then they think about possible outcomes and what action they

can take to handle the event (i.e., secondary appraisal). The presentstudy may extend this theory in two major ways. First, the present

results suggest that not all individuals undergo the same series ofprimary-secondary appraisal processes and some individuals may beless attuned to situational characteristics when deciding how to cope.

This stress appraisal process as posited by the transactional theorymay be more applicable to individuals who cope more flexibly than

to those who cope less flexibly. The present findings further revealthat the extent of differentiation and integration may account for

such individual differences. Hence, the issue of individual differencesin the stress-appraisal process should receive greater attention among

coping theorists and researchers in the study of coping flexibility.Second, apart from individual differences in the underlying cog-

nitive processes, results from this study also suggest that the cogni-tive processes underlying coping flexibility may be distinct fordifferent kinds of coping strategies. For individuals high in coping

flexibility, their use of monitoring may be closely linked to theirperception of controllability of stressful situations. They may vary

their use of monitoring as the extent of perceived controllabilitychanges. Their use of blunting, however, may not be related to per-

ceived controllability. As discussed previously, the greater use ofblunting is associated with higher levels of depression. To examine


the cognitive processes underlying flexible deployment of blunting

strategies across situations, further studies should be conductedamong students with more severe levels of depression or among in-

dividuals with clinical depression. Taken together, future studiesmay explore both individual differences in cognitive processes and

the nature of strategy characteristics as well as their conjoint influ-ences on the use of flexible strategies.

Practical Implications

These results may also have practical implications for the design ofstress management workshops. Most existing workshops emphasize

enhancement of coping skills, such as problem solving and perspec-tive taking (see, e.g., McNamara, 2001; Smith, 2002). The design of

these workshops is generally based on the conceptualization of cop-ing flexibility as the possession of a broad coping repertoire that

equips individuals to handle a diversity of situational demands (see,e.g., Haythornthwaite, Menefee, Heinberg, & Clark, 1998; Schmidt

et al., 2002). In this conceptualization, the application of diversestrategies is proposed as an effective way to manage stress rather

than responding reflexively with a limited repertoire of strategies tochanging stressful circumstances.

Although it is important to broaden the coping repertoire of

workshop participants by acquiring new coping strategies, it seemsto be more important to understand how to deploy various strategies

to meet distinct situational demands. This study showed that, com-pared to individuals lower in coping flexibility, individuals higher in

coping flexibility, who experience less anger and anxiety, are char-acterized by a greater ability to differentiate among distinct stressful

events and to apply an integrative strategy to handle different stress-ors. In light of these findings, we advocate that workshop partici-pants also learn two possible ‘‘meta-skills’’ of differentiation and

integration, both of which emphasize how to apply flexibly thelearned skills of coping with stressful situations appropriately. Spe-

cifically, stress management workshops may strengthen participants’ability to (a) differentiate among different types of stressful situa-

tions using dimensions such as controllability and impact, (b) rec-ognize the pros and cons of various coping strategies, and (c)

formulate integrated strategies to deploy situation-appropriate strat-egies to handle distinct types of stressful events. Because the present

878 Cheng & Cheung

results were derived from a sample of Chinese university students,

these suggestions may not necessarily be generalizable to individualsof other age groups, individuals from other cultural contexts, or both.

Directions for Future Research and Concluding Remarks

Before concluding, several caveats for this study are noteworthy.

First, this study is the first to examine perceived complexity in copingpatterns across situations. It is important to note that hypothetical

stressful situations were used in order to identify common dimen-sions underlying the perceptual processes. Results may only reflect

individuals’ ability to discern subtle differences embedded in distincthypothetical situations, and thus, the present results should be con-sidered as tentative. Whether such cognitive astuteness will be ap-

plied to individuals’ actual perception of real-life stressful situationsstill remains to be explored. One possible obstacle to the use of real-

life situations is that different individuals tend to report stressfulevents with distinct nature, thus making comparisons and the iden-

tification of common perceptual dimensions difficult, if not impos-sible. Researchers are encouraged to resolve this problem in

examining the coping processes underlying stress appraisals ofreal-life stressful situations.

Second, it is also important to note that participants in this study

were university students, who are characterized by a restricted rangeof age (i.e., young adults aged between 18 and 25) and education

level. Studies (e.g., Li, 1997; Palisi & Canning, 1991) have shownthat, compared to older adults and individuals with lower education

levels, younger adults and individuals with higher education levelsgenerally perceived that they have more control over an event out-

come and use more approach coping. The generalizability of thepresent findings to the general population remained to be explored.

Future studies should expand the scope of participants to a moreheterogeneous sample in terms of age and education level.

Finally, it is noteworthy that participants of this study were eth-

nically Chinese. The generalizability of these results to Western pop-ulations remained inconclusive. Previous cross-cultural studies (e.g.,

Ji, Peng, & Nisbett, 2000; Peng & Knowles, 2003) have revealeddifferences in the perceptual style between Chinese and American

students. When making decisions and attributions, American stu-dents tended to focus on internal factors, whereas Chinese students


tended to focus on situational factors. It is possible that the Chinese

may be more sensitive to situational changes and thus more flexiblein their perceptual patterns than their American counterparts (see

Cheng, Lee, & Chiu, 1999 for a discussion). Other findings (e.g.,McCarty et al., 1999; Rokach, 1999) also showed cultural differences

in the use of coping strategies. While Americans tended to use morebehavioral coping, Asians tended to use more cognitive coping.

Taken together, the cognitive and coping patterns as found in thisstudy may be different for Western samples.

To conclude, this study suggests that differentiation and integra-

tion are two relevant appraisal processes related to individual dif-ferences in coping flexibility. These two processes may provide rich

perceptions and fine distinctions among specific situational charac-teristics and may facilitate the deriving of alternative strategies and

making of choices among alternatives to meet distinct situationaldemands.

REFERENCES

Amirkhan, J. H. (1998). Attributions as predictors of coping and distress. Per-

sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1006–1018.

Anisman, H., & Merali, Z. (1999). Understanding stress: Characteristics and ca-

veats. Alcohol Research and Health, 23, 241–249.

Baker-Brown, G., Ballard, E. J., Bluck, S., de Vries, B., Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P.

E. (1992). The conceptual/integrative complexity scoring manual. In C. P.

Smith & J. W. Atkinson (Eds.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of the-

matic content analysis (pp. 401–418). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961).

An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4,

561–571.

Blashfield, R. K. (1984). The classification of psychopathology: Neo-Kraepelinian

and quantitative approaches. New York: Plenum.

Brehm, J. W. (1972). Responses to loss of freedom: A theory of psychological re-

actance. Morristown, NJ: General Learning.

Carver, C. S., Pozo, C., Harris, S. D., & Noriega, V. (1993). How coping mediates

the effect of optimism on distress: A study of women with early stage breast

cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 375–390.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1983). A control-theory approach to human be-

havior and implications for problems in self-management. Advances in Behavi-

oral Research and Therapy, 2, 127–193.

Chang, J. J., & Carroll, J. D. (1989). How to use PROFIT: A computer program

for property fitting by optimizing non-linear or linear correlation. In P. E.

Green, F. J. Carmone, & S. M. Smith (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Con-

cepts and applications (pp. 281–331). Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

880 Cheng & Cheung

Cheng, C. (2001). Assessing coping flexibility in real-life and laboratory settings:

A multimethod approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,

814–833.

Cheng, C. (2003). Cognitive and motivational processes underlying coping flex-

ibility: A dual-process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,

425–438.

Cheng, C., Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Cheung, J. S. (2001). Discriminative facility and

its role in the perceived quality of interactional experiences. Journal of Per-

sonality, 69, 765–786.

Cheng, C., Hui, W., & Lam, S. (2000). Perceptual style and behavioral pattern of

individuals with functional gastrointestinal disorders. Health Psychology, 19,

146–154.

Cheng, C., Lee, S., & Chiu, C. (1999). Dialectic thinking in daily life. Hong Kong

Journal of Social Sciences, 15, 1–25.

Cohen, M. (2002). Coping and emotional distress in primary and recurrent breast

cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 9,

245–251.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability inde-

pendent of psychopathology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24, 349–354.

Deck, T., & Jamieson, J. (1998). The influence of situational constructs on coping:

The effectiveness of using scenarios. Personality and Individual Differences, 25,

179–185.

Derogatis, L. R., Abeloff, M. D., & Melisaratos, N. (1979). Psychological coping

mechanisms and survival time in metastic breast cancer. Journal of the Amer-

ican Medical Association, 242, 1504–1508.

Dunn, J. G., & Nielsen, A. (1993). A between-sport comparison of situational

threat perceptions in ice hockey and soccer. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psy-

chology, 15, 449–465.

Everitt, B., Landau, S., & Leese, M. (2001). Cluster analysis (4th ed.). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Obertynski, M. (1996). Affect intensity, coping

styles, mood regulation expectancies and depressive symptoms. Personality &

Individual Differences, 20, 221–228.

Greenleaf, E. A. (1992). Improving rating scale measures by detecting and cor-

recting bias components in some response styles. Journal of Marketing Re-

search, 29, 176–188.

Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1992). Multi-

variate data analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D. E., & Schroder, H. M. (1961). Conceptual systems and

personality organization. New York: Wiley.

Haythornthwaite, J. A., Menefee, L. A., Heinberg, I. J., & Clark, M. R. (1998).

Pain coping strategies predict perceived control over pain. Pain, 77, 33–39.

Howe, M. L. (1997). Children’s memory for traumatic experiences. Learning and

Individual Differences, 9, 153–174.

Ji, L., Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, control, and perception of re-

lationships in the environment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 78,

943–955.


Kaluza, G. (2000). Changing unbalanced coping profiles–A prospective controlled

intervention trial in worksite health promotion. Psychology and Health, 15,

423–433.

Kaluza, G. (2001). Coping profiles and psychophysiological well-being: A cluster-

analytic study. Zeitschrift fur Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 22,

25–41.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.

Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method.

Psychometrika, 29, 115–129.

Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present, and future.

Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 237–247.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on

emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1, 141–169.

Li, F. (1997). Age differences in locus of control and self-monitoring in China.

Psychological Reports, 81, 1089–1090.

Maunsell, E., Brisson, J.,Mondor,M., Verreault, R., &Deschenes, L. (2001). Stressful

life events and survival after breast cancer. Psychosomatic Medicine, 63, 306–315.

McCarty, C. A., Weisz, J. R., Wanitromanee, K., Eastman, K. L., Suwanlert, S.,

& Chaiyasit, W., et al. (1999). Culture, coping, and context: Primary and sec-

ondary control among Thai and American youth. Journal of Child Psychology

& Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 40, 809–818.

McNamara, S. (2001). Stress management programme for secondary school stu-

dents. London: Routledge Farmer.

Mendoza Denton, R., Shoda, Y., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (1999). Applying

cognitive-affective processing system (CAPS) theory to cultural differences in

social behavior. In W. J. Lonner (Ed.), Merging past, present, and future in

cross cultural psychology: Selected papers from the Fourteenth International

Congress of the International Association for Cross Cultural Psychology (pp.

205–217). Bristol, PA: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.

Miller, A., & Wilson, P. (1979). Cognitive differentiation and integration: A con-

ceptual analysis. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 99, 340.

Miller, S. M. (1992). Individual differences in the coping process: What to know

and when to know it. In B. N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, re-

search, application (pp. 77–91). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Miller, S. M., & Mangan, C. E. (1983). Interacting effects of information and

coping style in adapting to gynecologic stress: Should the doctor tell all? Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 223–236.

Miller, S. M., Rodoletz, M., Schroeder, C. M., Mangan, C. E., & Sedlacek, T. V.

(1996). Applications of the monitoring process model to coping with severe

long-term medical threats. Health Psychology, 15, 216–225.

Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1987). Methodology review: Clustering meth-

ods. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 329–354.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and person-

ality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229–258.

Muris, P., De Jong, P. J., Merckelbach, H., & van Zuuren, F. J. (1994). Effects of

imposed monitoring and blunting strategies on emotional reactivity. Anxiety,

Stress & Coping, 7, 53–65.

882 Cheng & Cheung

Muris, P., van Zuuren, F. J., & De Vries, S. (1994). Monitoring, blunting and

situational anxiety: A laboratory study on coping with a quasi-medical stress-

or. Personality and Individual. Differences, 16, 365–372.

Murphy, B. A. (2001). Coping strategies used by athletes to cope with an up-

coming athletic event. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(4-B), 2070.

(UMI No. 3012735).

Nosofsky, R. M. (1991). Tests of an exemplar model for relating perceptual clas-

sification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Hu-

man Perception & Performance, 17, 3–27.

Palisi, B. J., & Canning, C. (1991). Perceived control among well educated men

and women. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 16, 93–110.

Peng, K., & Knowles, E. D. (2003). Culture, Education, and the Attribution

of Physical Causality. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,

1272–1284.

Rambo-Chroniak, K. M. (1999). Coping and adjustment in the freshman year

transition. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(12-A), 4378. (UMI No.

95011042).

Ravindran, A. V., Matheson, K., Griffiths, J., Merali, Z., & Anisman, H. (2002).

Stress, coping, uplifts, and quality of life in subtypes of depression: A

conceptual frame and emerging data. Journal of Affective Disorders, 71,

121–130.

Riskind, J. H., & Williams, N. L. (1999). Cognitive case conceptualization and

treatment of anxiety disorders: Implications of the looming vulnerability mod-

el. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 13, 295–315.

Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal

relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch

(Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 3, pp. 184–256). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Rokach, A. (1999). Cultural background and coping with loneliness. Journal of

Psychology, 133, 217–229.

Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress.

American Psychologist, 41, 813–819.

Roussi, P. (2002). Discriminative facility in perceptions of control and its relation

to psychological distress. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 15, 179–191.

Roussi, P., Miller, S. M., & Shoda, Y. (2000). Discriminative facility in the face

of threat: Relationship to psychological distress. Psychology and Health, 15,

21–33.

Schmidt, S., Nachtigall, C., Wuethrich-Martone, O., & Strauss, B. (2002). At-

tachment and coping with chronic disease. Journal of Psychosomatic Research,

53, 763–773.

Schroder, H. M. (1971). Conceptual complexity and personality organization. In

H. M. Schroder & P. Suedfeld (Eds.), Personality theory and information

processing (pp. 240–273). New York: Ronald.

Schwartz, C. E., & Daltroy, L. H. (1999). Learning from unreliability: The im-

portance of inconsistency in coping dynamics. Social Science and Medicine, 48,

619–631.


Schwartz, M. D., Lerman, C., Miller, S. M., & Daly, M. (1995). Coping dispo-

sition, perceived risk, and psychological distress among women at increased

risk for ovarian cancer. Health Psychology, 14, 232–235.

Shek, D. T. L. (1988). Reliability and factorial structure of the Chinese version of

the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral

Assessment, 10, 303–317.

Slangen-de Kort, Y. A., Midden, C. J., Aarts, H., & Van Wagenberg, F. (2001).

Determinants of adaptive behavior among older persons: Self-efficacy, impor-

tance, and personal dispositions as directive mechanisms. International Journal

of Aging & Human Development, 53, 253–274.

Smith, J. C. (2002). Stress management: A comprehensive handbook of techniques

and strategies. New York: Springer.

Spielberger, C. D. (1983).Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y).

Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Spielberger, C. D. (1988). Manual for the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-

2. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Stephan, W. G. (1977). Cognitive differentiation in intergroup perception. Soc-

iometry, 40, 50–58.

Stewin, L. L. (1976). Integrative complexity: Structure and correlates. Alberta

Journal of Educational Research, 22, 226–236.

Strentz, T., & Auerbach, S. M. (1988). Adjustment to the stress of simulated

captivity: Effects of emotion-focused versus problem-focused preparation on

hostages differing in locus of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 55, 652–660.

Streufert, S., & Streufert, S. C. (1978). Behavior in the complex environment. New

York: Wiley.

Suedfeld, P., & Coren, S. (1992). Cognitive correlates of conceptual complexity.

Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1193–1199.

Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative

complexity. In C. P. Smith & J. W. Atkinson (Eds.), Motivation and

personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis, (pp. 393–400). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.).

New York: Harper Collins.

Taylor, S. E. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cognitive ad-

aptation. American Psychologist, 38, 1161–1173.

Tramer, R. R., & Schludermann, E. H. (1974). Cognitive differentiation in a ger-

iatric population. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 1071–1075.

van Zuuren, F. J., & Dooper, R. (1999). Coping style and self-reported health

promotion and disease detection behavior. British Journal of Health Psychol-

ogy, 4, 81–89.

Wagner, R. K. (1987). Tacit knowledge in everyday intelligent behavior. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1236–1247.

Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function.

Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244.

884 Cheng & Cheung

Watanabe, S., Iwanaga, M., & Ozeki, Y. (2002). Effects of controllability and

desire for control on coping and stress responses. Japanese Journal of Health

Psychology, 15, 32–40.

Westman, M., & Shirom, A. (1995). Dimensions of coping behavior: A proposed

conceptual framework. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 8, 87–100.

Wilhelm, K., Roy, K., Mitchell, P., Brownhill, S., & Parker, G. (2002). Gender

differences in depression risk and coping factors in a clinical sample. Acta

Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 106, 45–53.

Wyer, R. S. Jr. (1964). Assessment and correlates of cognitive differentiation and

integration. Journal of Personality, 32, 495–509.

Yang, C. F. (1997). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes

(Vol. 1). Taipei, Taiwan: Yuan-Liou Publishing.

Ye, R. (1990). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Shanghai,

China: Educational Research Institute, Shanghai Teachers University.

Yue, X. (2001). Culturally constructed coping among university students in Be-

ijing. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 2, 119–137.

Appendix A: Situations of the Extended Miller Behavioral StyleScale (EMBSS)

Dentist

Vividly imagine that you are afraid of the dentist and have to get

some dental work done.

Hostage

Vividly imagine that you are being held hostage by a group of armed

terrorists in a public building.

Layoff

Vividly imagine that, due to a large drop in sales, it is rumored thatseveral people in your department at work will be laid off. Your

supervisor has turned in an evaluation of your work for the pastyear. The decision about lay-offs has been made and will be an-nounced in several days.

Plane

Vividly imagine that you are on an airplane, 30minutes from your

destination, when the plane unexpectedly goes into a deep dive andthen suddenly levels off. After a short time, the pilot announces that


nothing is wrong, although the rest of the ride may be rough. You,

however, are not convinced that all is well.

Dinner

Vividly imagine that your supervisor and you attend a business din-

ner. You have not attended this kind of formal dinner before. Yourealize that you do not know any guests who attend the dinner.

Ballgame

Vividly imagine that you have to participate in a very importantballgame. The outcome of the ballgame will have a huge impact on

your team’s reputation. Your team has been widely expected to bethe champion. The audience cheers your team loudly in the stadium.

Early Cancer

Vividly imagine that you go to the clinic to get a body-check report.The doctor tells you that the report shows that you have got earlystomach cancer, which can be controlled by medication.

Terminal Cancer

Vividly imagine that you have had stomach cancer for a long time.One day your doctor tells you that your cancer has reached a ter-

minal stage and asks you to enjoy the rest of your life.

886 Cheng & Cheung

cognitive processes underlying coping flexibility

Documents